Jim Fulton wrote:
> 2. I think local configuration address use cases that most people
> don't have but introduce complexity that I bet a lot of developers
> trip over.
I think there are two cases where people typically deal with local
* setting up local utilities (for authentication, the catalog,
application-specific configuration storage + UI)
* writing tests that involve local utilities. (a more advanced case, but
still quite common)
> 3. I think the right word here is "local registry". I think the whole
> concept should be labeled as advanced and we should discourage people
> from even pondering it unless they have a strong use case, like
> wanting to host multiple web sites with different configs in the same
> application. :)
I don't think "hosting multiple web sites with different configs in the
same application" is the only use case.
* the catalog. This can be done using a global component that somehow
stuffs information in the ZODB, but there are no common patterns for
this that people can follow, so local utilities are currently easier to use.
* often it is nice to have application configuration to have a user
interface, so that end users can configure aspects of the application.
This may be filling in an email address or customizing a template or
adding a user, etc. Local utilities are a nice solution for this, even
if there is just a single application installed.
> 4. I think we should step back (re)think how we handle the goals that
> drive this. If we do, we might come up with something so different
> that we'd make this discussion moot.
My goals are:
* I do care about local component configuration
* I'm a simple person and want to make my life easier
* I want to be able to write and test local utilities without having to
depend on zope.site for my testing (right now I have a hacked up version
that I just copy and paste). An example of the hacked up version of
site management is here:
And I'd like to put that code somewhere proper.
* I'd like to change the dependency structure so that a minor dependency
on site management doesn't require a package to pull in zope.container
(which pulls in quite a bit itself)
P.S. As of this point I'm dropping my proposal to rename anything to
anything. Let's indeed focus on the wider discussion (as indicated by
Roger and Jim)
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -